Nashville vs Austin? (living in, legally, pine)

[bspray]

Originally Posted by eastmemphisguy

Outside of climate/natural scenery, what's the difference, really? They're both trendy, low density, fairly reasonably priced, mid sized, and convenient to hilly recreation. In any case, neighborhood is almost always much more important than city. Just about anywhere has the scary side of town, the quaint historic area, the generic suburban sprawl, etc.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Having said that, the climate difference is pretty significant. Central Texas, on average seems to stay about 10 degrees warmer than what Nashville is, year round. When it seems ridiculously hot here in Nashville for weeks on end, it is even hotter (and just as humid) in Austin and it stays that way from May through October.

Central and South Texas are also entering their third year of significant drought. Watering restrcitions are now year round in much of the area and in some places you can only water your lawn one day every other week and only during certain hours of the day. For the last 3 years, lawns in central and south Texas have been pretty much dead\brown by June and there is no end to the drought in site. Lakes are starting to dry up.

On the topic of scenery, I think both places have their charms but there are differences. Austin has a lot of small rolling hills and more of a rustic, rugged terrain. There isn't as much greenery in Austin and the trees don't get nearly as big as they do in Nashville. Austin also doesn't have much of a Fall or Winter. Some people prefer that more rugged appearance to the scenery - some people prefer the lush greenery and large hills in Nashville. Nashville certainly has all 4 seasons.

I would also argue that the professional vibe in the two towns, while similar, is still different. Nashville has a lot of corporate healthcare, Austin is more technology company based. Austin seems a little quirkier by desire. Both towns have a perpetual energy from having lots of things to do (big and small), all the time.

Music is the same story. Austin, very grass roots\indie music scene - Nashville is very corporate.

Both towns have significant and compelling histories.

While Nashville certainly has more universities and probably more students combined, Austin definitely has more of a college town feel to it. Nashville seems to have a little bit more of a professional and family friendly ethos to it. Not that Austin isn't family friendly, it certainly is, Nashville just seems to have a more family friendly feel. Maybe that is just me.

Another thing is sports. Nashville has the NFL, the NHL and AAA baseball. Austin has minor league hockey and basketball and AAA baseball. Both towns have active college sports environments. While that is something that is probably only important to a sports fan, it is a pretty big deal to a sports fan.

And, then there is religion. Nashville has this in ABUNDANCE. Residents in Middle Tennessee have no problem telling you about their religious beliefs and where they go to church. I have never gotten that vibe in Austin. You also don't see churches every 50 ft. in Austin. Churces are more prevalent than McDonalds in Nashville.

Since you asked about alergies, depending on what survey you're looking at both Austin and Nashville will almost always end up in the top 5 worst cities for allergies - typically numbers 1 and 2.

As a responsible gun advocate, again, I would say both Tennessee and Texas are similar - probably the two most liberal states for gun ownership. As I alluded to above in this thread, Texas is probably a little more liberal when it comes to the rights of the gun owner.

So, I would agree that the two cities are VERY similar and yet they both seem very different in so many ways. If any two cities in this country are twins, I think you would have a hard time finding two that are more alike than Austin and Nashville.

[gwenrn]

Thanks for all the input. This thread makes me think I should add Florida to my list.

[groovamos]

People on the C-D fora for both cities know me as the one who has collected everything I have written on various websites about my comparing the two cities. I don't live in either one now but lived in Austin twice and Nashville 3 times including growing up there. I first moved to Austin during the classic 'coming of age' party known as Austin in the '70's (like Berkeley of the '60's), moving there from Nashville. What I'm going to do is comment on a previous post in a way that I can add to my essay which is posted on C-D. I haven't seen another essay on the subject at any site. I'm home with flu, have the time so here goes.

Originally Posted by qwertyasdf

I wouldn't call Austin and Nashville "incredibly different". They are similar in some ways. Both are State Capitals, similar sized metro areas, both are growing but Austin is bigger and growing faster than Nashville. Nashville has 4 seasons and Austin has 2, hot and not too hot. Housing and property taxes are expensive in Austin, but things like gas and food are not that much out of line from the rest of the South or Midwest.

Agree totally, can add that Nashville growth has picked up in last couple of years and may be growing as fast as Austin now. Austin influx into downtown from the West Coast is truly astonishing with several 40+ story residential buildings downtown (hotels included). Nashville people in charge (developers included) seem to be stuck in the 30~31 story maximum mindset for all buildings. We in Houston have maybe sixty-five+ or so residential highrises of 20+ including several at 40~50 but we do not have one as tall as the Austonian (stupid name) at 55. There are all kinds of people in Nashville that are anti-height including city government, not caring that this is essentially anti-developer, and until they get over this sentiment, Tennessee will be in the shadows of TX, GA, and NC in the south. There are actually streets in the Nashville core that have their own zoned height restrictions. Its all about attitude, of the capitalist go-for-it style and more, and unless influential Tennesseans come and live in TX for a few years they maybe won't get it. We don't even have zoning in Houston. There I've had my say but now the upside: Nashville is vastly better positioned for corporate relocations and various back office operations coming to town. This kind of stuff ain't gonna happen to Austin (exception: semiconductor manufacturing, small software companies) for reasons that are apparent to me (that I may go into in my essay) but this has been happening in Nashville in accelerated fashion, many headquarters relocated to Nashville in the past 15 years and more. Both cities are entrepreneurial hotbeds right now, Austin got into the tech thing early and is ahead of Nashville in this way and this has been the key to its growth, plus it's beauty and location in a super-state. But since the biggest entrepreneurial/ business sector by far in Nashville is healthcare, this sector is forcing Nashville into the tech innovation arena.

Originally Posted by qwertyasdf

Both towns have very friendly and approachable people. It's really hard to complain about the people in Austin. And the people are much nicer in person than a lot of the rude commenters that participate in this forum would lead an outsider to believe.

Yes

Originally Posted by qwertyasdf

Politically Austin is libertarian with a liberal slant. Most anything goes as long as you don't hurt anybody or cost anybody a lot of money. I'd venture to guess that there are a lot of artist types in Nashville and Nashville may be a lot like Austin politically, maybe a little more conservative.

I disagree. Austin is proudly liberal to a tee, of course the suburbs less so. That being said, there is a huge libertarian contingent in Austin and this is where as a left of center hipster I learned enough of the libertarian tenets to become a slightly liberal libertarian, working on the Ed Clark campaign in 1980. I actually explored the Green Party when I came to Houston, but I began to fall away from hardcore libertarian thinking mid nineties and so when 9-11 happened I was done with those. I'll do readers a favor and not add this to the essay.

Originally Posted by qwertyasdf

Traffic is heavy and barely crawls at rush hour, but Austin drivers as a rule, are very courteous drivers. It's never hard to change lanes or pull out on to a busy road, as most drivers are more than willing to let you in. Drivers in Austin are not bad drivers, as a rule that is.

Austin has an almost unbearable situation with one interstate, and that one interstate connecting it with a larger metro to the south and a gigantic metro to the north with smaller metros along the way like Waco. They have an unbearable situation with the inadequate number of lanes on that interstate for 2/3 mile or so right downtown. They fixed the exact same problem in the midtown in 1975 with a 1 mile elevated viaduct. I don't know what the problem is getting it figured out. The State of Texas thought they had it figured out by building a boondoggle tollway around the sparsely populated east side, and so they have a sparsely populated tollway. Object lesson: counties are the proper entities for tollway development. States have too many competing political interests, and too much of our money to burn.

Nashville has a similar problem with a major artery Hillsboro Rd going through a high end retail area.

Originally Posted by qwertyasdf

Both are music towns, but Austin is more iindie and Texas music. Music is heard nearly everywhere in Austin. Nashvile is more corporate mainstream music. It's all according to what you like. I love all kinds of Texas music, whether it's country, rock, blues, folk, Tejano. On the other hand, Nashville has Emmylou Harris and John Prine. Austin can't top that.

I probably shouldn't say anything. As much as I can admire singer-songwriters I find both of those kinda boring even though I can appreciate Prine's humor. But aging stars are moving to Nashville in droves, more so by far than Austin. Bonnie Raitt came and lived in Austin in the '80's having some of her friends (e.g. Jimmie Vaughn) there, but she didn't stay long. Sandra Bullock bought a stupendous house with an amazing view in Austin, that was her main residence but I think that has changed. Now maybe the contributor and I can agree on Leon Russell. In terms of the music all over the place, Nashville is Austin's equal now, the difference is that in Nashville you decide if you want to be around tourists or do you want to be around local people in the know.

Originally Posted by qwertyasdf

Austin has lots of restaraunts and good places to eat. It's not all Tex-Mex and BBQ. Trip Advisor ranks an expensive sushi restarunt as the number one restaraunt in Austin. Who would have ever thought that, 5 or 10 years ago?

I cannot testify to the quality of food at Nashville restaurants generally, but can tell you that Nashville restaurants are being raved about in all the right national publications and I can't see this happening to Austin, and I think it has to do with Nashville as a city having a historical sense of self that Austin lacks as a city (more on what I mean below). I think it was GQ that just came out with their list of top 12 favorite restaurants in the country and one of them is in Nashville. Here is a New Jersey publication with photos: http://www.courierpostonline.com/app...2220018&Ref=PH

All this being said, when I'm sitting down in Manuel's at Congress near 5th with a plate of unbelievable nachos with guacamole, black beans and jack cheese, GQ doesn't mean s___ to me. They've been there 30+ years for good reason. Now what I meant above is that for a long time Nashville was 2~3 times the size of Austin. Austin has grown up with its sense of history tied more to the Texas land and culture and especially the Hill Country and its culture and music. Nashville in this sense IMO has more of a sense of historical self WITH the regional stuff too and I think restaurateurs/chef build on this when they get into the'zone' as Tom Petty would concur, his term.

Originally Posted by qwertyasdf

And there are tons of festivals. Nearly every weekend seems like there's a big festival going on somewhere. Austin also has lots and lots of shopping areas and there are new ones popping up seems like nearly every week. No pro sports in Austin, but the Longhorns are here. If you want pro, San Antonio, Houston and Dallas are all easy drives away.

Austin seems like a very safe town. I know anything can happen anywhere at anytime, but I have never felt unsafe anywhere in Austin, or never felt like I was about to be a crime victim.

Accurate enough so back to the OP:

Originally Posted by gwenrn

I was told Nashville is in the south and Austin is in the west which makes them incredibly different.

True except for the incredibly part, and that Austin seems to have a southwestern vibe, more like Santa Fe than Houston which is more like New Orleans than Austin

Originally Posted by gwenrn

Then, we were told they are quite similar.

Good info, the similarities are superficial as should be not surprising. To a person having lived in both, the similarities seem not so much to be there.

Originally Posted by gwenrn

the gun thing really does freak me out.

Hardly know how to grapple with that except the gun thing exists all over, including where you are right now. The gun thing gave us the independence that had been declared by some brave people. There is a such thing as degree when it comes to the gun thing. The question is: are some states going to legally allow the gun thing for a few privileged individuals and illegally for the low lifers, or are they going to allow the gun thing in a more democratic way? Where gun ownership is high, like Harris County Texas you do hear of daytime burglaries, but almost never do you hear of home invasions or night time burglaries. Don't know about you but I like that and don't freak out.

[gwenrn]

Groovamos - Thank you for the input and most importantly, hope you feel better!!

[groovamos]

I don't know if the contributor I quote below has lived in Austin, several things have me thinking not.

Originally Posted by bspray

...it is even hotter (and just as humid) in Austin and it stays that way from May through October.

It is not just as humid in Austin. Rainfall during July/August in Austin is always nil, and there are always watering restrictions during July/August. The sizable leftist environmental contingent in the area hate developers for a lot of reasons but one of them is for not putting in cisterns for every house built. You can compare annual rainfall in Austin and Nashville and figure average humidity is not the same. One exception is that in summer of 2007 it rained literally every day in Houston and almost every day in Austin.

Originally Posted by bspray

On the topic of scenery, I think both places have their charms but there are differences. Austin has a lot of small rolling hills and more of a rustic, rugged terrain. There isn't as much greenery in Austin and the trees don't get nearly as big as they do in Nashville. Austin also doesn't have much of a Fall or Winter. Some people prefer that more rugged appearance to the scenery - some people prefer the lush greenery and large hills in Nashville. Nashville certainly has all 4 seasons.

Kind of a head smacker. So far as the "small rolling hills" vs "large hills in Nashville" let's look at some numbers:

Austin elevation 489'
Nashville elevation 597'
Travis county highest elevation: 1440'
Davidson county highest elevation: 1170'

So from downtown Austin you are looking at the highest hilltop 951' above you.
From downtown Nashville you are looking at 573' highest point above you.

The difference is not at all minor as the hilly aesthetics are a big deal to me being in a flat county now and having grown up in Nashville and spent early adulthood in Austin. There are some rolling hills in Austin, but more significantly as you go west in the metro you see that the terrain, the Edwards Plateau, is similar to the Cumberland Plateau topographically. The highest point in Kerr County (Kerrville) is 2400'

Also the trees of the Hill Country are definitely small, due to the limestone and lower rainfall, However there are plenty of large live oaks in some places which are scattered among the more plentiful juniper in the valleys. Also all of the waterways in the Hill Country are lined with cypress, see linked photos at bottom. But the east side of Austin has plenty of taller trees like sycamore and oaks and hackberries out the wazoo. I had a very large sycamore on my property there.

Originally Posted by bspray

I would also argue that the professional vibe in the two towns, while similar, is still different. Nashville has a lot of corporate healthcare, Austin is more technology company based. Austin seems a little quirkier by desire. Both towns have a perpetual energy from having lots of things to do (big and small), all the time.

Music is the same story. Austin, very grass rootsindie music scene - Nashville is very corporate.

Both towns have significant and compelling histories.

So far as the music reference above, I think everyone knows the industry is preeminent in Nashville, and almost non-existent in Austin but for some recording studios. How this makes the music scene in Nashville "very corporate" is not known to me. I played in that music scene decades ago and I don't remember "very corporate" coming around at all but we sure would have liked it.

So far as compelling histories nothing can be as compelling as Fort Nashborough where a bunch of pioneer men built up a community and waited for their families to come by river. Given the Nashville is quite a bit older and was much bigger until the late eighties, the historical nature if Nashville is quite different than Austin and that is even before you look at the history of music recorded in Nashville starting in the 1940's.

Originally Posted by bspray

While Nashville certainly has more universities and probably more students combined, Austin definitely has more of a college town feel to it. Nashville seems to have a little bit more of a professional and family friendly ethos to it. Not that Austin isn't family friendly, it certainly is, Nashville just seems to have a more family friendly feel. Maybe that is just me.

I would guess that the two metros have similar college enrollment, Austin maybe larger with two large public U's, UT and Texas State (San Marcos).

Originally Posted by bspray

And, then there is religion. Nashville has this in ABUNDANCE. Residents in Middle Tennessee have no problem telling you about their religious beliefs and where they go to church. I have never gotten that vibe in Austin. You also don't see churches every 50 ft. in Austin. Churces are more prevalent than McDonalds in Nashville.

Here we go again. I never got that in my 3 periods of Nashville residency, EVER, 19 years total. There are others on C-D saying the same thing as I and some others saying what the contributor says. I don't know the answer as to why this is. I do know that people moving to Nashville from the blue states seem to make up the coterie of the latter. Maybe they're dreaming about it at night after being around some church-going people in the day, and being in that vibratory space. Maybe they don't like being in that space and want to get it off their chest as a warning to others of their ideological coterie, and have to put something specific out there to explain their irritation. I just don't know. And Houston culturally is almost identical to Nashville with megachurches that out do every city in the U.S. , do I get any experience of what the contributor is saying? Never.

Originally Posted by bspray

Since you asked about alergies, depending on what survey you're looking at both Austin and Nashville will almost always end up in the top 5 worst cities for allergies - typically numbers 1 and 2.

As a responsible gun advocate, again, I would say both Tennessee and Texas are similar - probably the two most liberal states for gun ownership. As I alluded to above in this thread, Texas is probably a little more liberal when it comes to the rights of the gun owner.

So, I would agree that the two cities are VERY similar and yet they both seem very different in so many ways. If any two cities in this country are twins, I think you would have a hard time finding two that are more alike than Austin and Nashville.

Fair enough

[bspray]

While I did not live in Austin, I spent more than 2 decades between San Marcos and San Antonio. I have been to Austin enough to comment on the similarities and differences between it and Nashville, where I currently live.

Originally Posted by groovamos

It is not just as humid in Austin. Rainfall during July/August in Austin is always nil, and there are always watering restrictions during July/August. The sizable leftist environmental contingent in the area hate developers for a lot of reasons but one of them is for not putting in cisterns for every house built. You can compare annual rainfall in Austin and Nashville and figure average humidity is not the same. One exception is that in summer of 2007 it rained literally every day in Houston and almost every day in Austin.

Average Annual Humidity Austin, TX - 77.16
Average Annual Humidity Nashville, TN - 70.13

Humidity also comes from proximity to large bodies of water, in this case, the Gulf of Mexico.

Regarding the watering restrictions, yes they do always exist in July and August. What is uncommon is for the watering restrictions to extend over winter, which is what has happened for the last two winters. Austin (and all of central and south Texas) are in a massive drought and have been since early 2012. Consequently, they've been under Stage 2 watering restrictions in Austin and Stage 3 in San Antonio for the better part of two years.

Originally Posted by groovamos

Kind of a head smacker. So far as the "small rolling hills" vs "large hills in Nashville" let's look at some numbers:

Austin elevation 489'
Nashville elevation 597'
Travis county highest elevation: 1440'
Davidson county highest elevation: 1170'

So from downtown Austin you are looking at a hilltop 951' above you.
From downtown Nashville you are looking at 573' highest point above you.

The difference is not at all minor as the hilly aesthetics are a big deal to me being in a flat county now and having grown up in Nashville and spent early adulthood in Austin. There are some rolling hills in Austin, but more significantly as you go west in the metro you see that the terrain, the Edwards Plateau, is similar to the Cumberland Plateau topographically. The highest point in Kerr County (Kerrville) is 2400'

We are just going to have to agree to disagree here.

Nashville's elevation ranges from 385 feet (117 m) above sea level at the Cumberland River to 1,160 feet (350 m) above sea level at its highest point.

Austin's elevation varies from 425 feet (130 m) above sea level to approximately 1,000 feet (305 m) above sea level at it's highest point.

That's about a 200 foot difference. While you may not consider that significant, I do. To me, Austin has gentle rolling hills and Nashville has stark rising hills... again, in my opinion.

While I will agree with you that when you get out into western Travis County, or even as far west as Westlake, the hills start getting larger, but western Travis County isn't necessarily Austin anymore than Williamson County is only Franklin. Sure if you go even further west to Kerville it gets almost mountainous, but if you're going to take credit for the mountainous region of Kerville, a couple of hours from Austin, then I can take credit for mountainous regions within a couple of hours of Nashville.

Originally Posted by groovamos

Also the trees of the Hill Country are definitely small, due to the limestone and lower rainfall, However there are plenty of large live oaks in some places which are scattered among the more plentiful juniper in the valleys. Also all of the waterways in the Hill Country are lined with cypress, see linked photos at bottom. But the east side of Austin has plenty of taller trees like sycamore and oaks and hackberries out the wazoo. I had a very large sycamore on my property there.

It's due to lower rainfall. If it were due to limestone they would be just as small in Nashville. Seriously, limestone is the state rock of Tennessee. Both cities live on top of it.

Of course you can find exceptions to any rule but in general, the trees in Central and South Texas are dwarves compared to the trees in Middle Tennessee. There is a tree in Landa Park in New Braunfels that is probably the biggest tree I have ever seen outside of California. I've also spent more time than I can remember tubing the Comal and the Guadalupe rivers, I've seen the cypress trees. That doesn't change the fact that the trees in Nashville are much larger than the trees in Austin.

I am well aware of the large trees in the eastern parts of Travis County. I spent 6 days in Bastrop volunteering during the fire in 2011. Even taking that into consideration, I would say there are areas of eastern Travis County that are on par with Nashville but again, eastern Travis County isn't exactly Austin.

Originally Posted by groovamos

So far as the music reference above, I think everyone knows the industry is preeminent in Nashville, and almost non-existent in Austin but for some recording studios. How this makes the music scene in Nashville "very corporate" is not known to me. I played in that music scene decades ago and I don't remember "very corporate" coming around at all but we sure would have liked it.

I will grant you that I don't know much about the music scene of either city outside of being a spectator. Having said that, I have read quite a few stories on artists where they talk about not wanting to do shows in Nashville because half the seats are taken by record executives and sit empty during the show. I've never read anything like that about Austin.

Austin City Limits is a great festival and Zilker park is a great venue. While SXSW is a great event for music, it's really not all about music. It is also very much about technology and communication.

Neither of those is the CMA Music Festival or Bonnaroo.

Originally Posted by groovamos

So far as compelling histories nothing can be as compelling as Fort Nashborough where a bunch of pioneer men built up a community and waited for their families to come by river. Given the Nashville is quite a bit older and was much bigger until the late eighties, the historical nature if Nashville is quite different than Austin and that is even before you look at the history of music recorded in Nashville starting in the 1940's.

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. If you're trying to say that Nashville's history is limited to Demonbraun and Fort Nashborough that is just too ludicrous to comment on. That is akin to saying Austin's history is as compelling as a bunch of Germans, Mexicans and former Tennesseans setting up camp on the Colorado River.

Originally Posted by groovamos

I would guess that the two metros have similar college enrollment, Austin maybe larger with two large public U's, UT and Texas State (San Marcos).

If you're going to count San Marcos as part of Austin then you can count Mufreesboro as part of Nashville, and probably Austin Peay for that matter.

I would venture to say the enrollment of UT Austin and St Edwards is close to the same, if not smaller than Vanderbilt, Belmont, Lipscomb, TSU, Fisk and Trevecca.

So, with all that said, I think it is great that you come on here and share so much of your experience between the two cities. Like most other people, I marvel at the similarities myself. Coming on here and acting like you are the only source of information and mocking anyone with a view contrary to yours is not so appreciated.

[groovamos]

Well here are figures showing Nashville 3 points more humid:
Relative Humidity Averages in US Cities - Current Results

Granted not as much a difference than I was thinking based on my having lived in both places.

My comments on the terrain comparison hold up when you consider both cities are on rivers, so that the stated altitude of each city is roughly valid along miles and miles of river front excepting that there are dams in Austin. But you get my point on that. Now where the contributor got the highest points in the two counties I don't know but here is the source I used:

Davidson county @ 1170': Davidson County High Point - Peakbagger.com
Travis county @ 1440': Shingle Hills - Peakbagger.com

OK now to the vegetation in the Hill Country including Austin western 'burbs: The scrubby trees of the area is ABSOLUTELY related to the thin layer of soil on the limestone hills and ridges where it even exists. It's why you don't see live oak growing on the hills, unless the poster has a different explanation for that. In the lower levels you DO see plenty of live oaks growing, all you have to do is drive out 290 towards Dripping Springs. See my second photo, last post for example of large trees lower down and scrub higher up. In other words the lower levels collect topsoil washed away from the higher levels. In the hills around Nashville it is nothing like this, huge trees are all over the hills, there are literally forests going forever in the hilly regions. BTW Westlake Hills is only about 4 miles from downtown Austin.

Now so far as the history of both cities, compare the fight to move the state capitol to a spot on the Colorado River from Houston to historical legend. Compare the laying out of a checkered grid of streets to legend. How legendary do you want to try and make that, and the long fighting about it involving Sam Houston no less? OK a legendary figure trying to help stop the anti-legendary grid of streets becoming a new state capitol to replace the one in his namesake town. In case you don't get my drift, it just doesn't inspire me too much to consider it legendary. San Antonio yes, Alamo yes, Davy Crockett yes. And Nashville was already a city as those streets were being laid out.

On the other hand the founding of Nashville could rightly be called legendary, rugged pioneer men braving the possibility of being killed/massacred, threading up the Cumberland Gap, coming up over the plateau and establishing a fort on the river. And after getting an economy of sorts started, sending for their women and children who then came by flatboat. A very satisfying story.

Just for grins I might add that since I grew up in Nashville and saw the place in the '50's ~ '60's, that I would tell you I have talked to numerous people my age and older who grew up in Austin. Just as I and my contemporaries didn't think too much of Nashville as a city in those decades, our contemporaries in Austin thought the same thing about Austin. Now it's clear that those sentiments did not extend to the terrain on which each was built, but for what it's worth, each city has progressed in astonishing fashion and the terrain is quite the major factor in each case.

But one last thing: we had a scenario in Nashville where we had amazing local heroes hitting charts all over the country: Floyd Cramer, Patsy Cline, Brenda Lee, Chet Adkins, Boots Randolph, for a short time the Everly Brothers, Roy Orbison, Ray Stevens and a bunch of country artists that I knew less about. People like Ricky Nelson and Elvis came to record. I wouldn't have traded witnessing that kind of history for hardly anything because as a kid it was like osmosis to me absorbing all of that culture in the air.

[bspray]

Originally Posted by groovamos

My comments on the terrain comparison hold up when you consider both cities are on rivers, so that the stated altitude of each city is roughly valid along miles and miles of river front excepting that there are dams in Austin. But you get my point on that. Now where the contributor got the highest points in the two counties I don't know but here is the source I used:

Davidson county @ 1170': Davidson County High Point - Peakbagger.com
Travis county @ 1440': Shingle Hills - Peakbagger.com

I used Wikipedia for my elevation numbers. The difference is, you're trying to use the counties because it better supports your point and I was using the cities which better supports my point. Consequently, the thread is about Austin and Nashville not Davidson and Travis.

Regarding the trees, I've been to the Salt Lick in in Dripping Springs more times than I can count and while I have seen trees that are larger than in the Austin metro, I've still never seen trees the size of what they are in Nashville in that part of Central Texas.

My point for following up on your post wasn't as much to try and nitpick the minutiae as much as it was to support my original post that you so rudely mocked as though you are the only authority on Nashville and Austin. I am not sure I understand half of what you wrote in your reply. I think it's best if we just agree to disagree.

[budgiegirl]

I am going to say up front that I have never stepped foot anywhere near Austin. Secondly, I have no idea about elevation differences between Nashville and Austin. However I am a pretty outdoorsy person and have hiked all over middle Tennessee and beyond. The elevation is not particularly striking to me - as I moved here from New England where we have many >4000 footers to choose from. What is striking about middle TN is the lush greenery and the descent DOWN into the valleys and gulches. Yes there are some nice hills you can climb, but most of the great trails require you hike down into the ravines and then climb your way out. I have no idea what the descent depth is, but it is very cool and beautiful, and underutilized, which I like. I almost hate to even let people know about it - just that when describing Nashville's natural beauty, I would not quibble about the local altitude (although it is true the Cumberland works its way up there), but rather the cool hikes you can take down, not just up.

[groovamos]

Originally Posted by bspray

I used Wikipedia for my elevation numbers. The difference is, you're trying to use the counties because it better supports your point and I was using the cities which better supports my point. Consequently, the thread is about Austin and Nashville not Davidson and Travis.

Regarding the trees, I've been to the Salt Lick in in Dripping Springs more times than I can count and while I have seen trees that are larger than in the Austin metro, I've still never seen trees the size of what they are in Nashville in that part of Central Texas.

My point for following up on your post wasn't as much to try and nitpick the minutiae as much as it was to support my original post that you so rudely mocked as though you are the only authority on Nashville and Austin. I am not sure I understand half of what you wrote in your reply. I think it's best if we just agree to disagree.

Well please excuse the rudeness wherever it so rudely happened to be sticking its rude nose into the discussion tent. Excuse me for seeming to know something about living in Austin, but really I never claimed much I don't think. How you like my pics?

Now I used county high points because (1) Davidson and Nashville are legally the same and (2) Lakeway and points west of Mopac in Austin ARE Austin and the Austin metro.

The topography is more dramatic than Nashville because within the Austin metro you can be driving along for miles at the higher altitudes looking out and down, for example Comanche Trail looking down at Lake Travis and seeing peaks around the shore and in the far distance. Also Bee Cave Rd going west from 360 driving at altitude and taking in the immense views (albeit filled as they are with development). Not so anywhere in the Nashville metro unless there are roads in NW Davidson tracing along ridgetops and plateaus.

The difference in humidity in July/August between the two cities is dramatic, lets face it those are the months when it really counts and it helps in the hotter Austin clime. Does not help the landscaped vegetation unfortunately. Real simple: rain in Nashville, no rain in Austin. Rainfall does affect humidity. Excuse me if that is rude.

Bigger trees on the east side of Austin and some in central, smaller trees on the west. It doesn't rain more on the east side of Austin, really. The difference is soil, amounts AND composition. Any geologist will tell you Austin is on the edge of the Edwards Plateau.

BTW Bastrop county gets virtually the same rainfall as Travis. It has acidic soil compared to alkaline (think lime as in limestone) in Travis allowing tall pines to grow. But Lob-lolly pine from East Texas will not propagate in Bastrop. The Lost Pines will grow because they are a subspecies with a unique coating on the needles holding in moisture. All this has nothing to do with rainfall in Bastrop County. It's all about soil. People on the east side of Austin can plant pines and they will grow. People planting pines on the west side would get laughed at.